How to Stop Fannie Mea Fake Foreclosures
FRAUD STOPPERS PMA is your only source for court ready evidence to win your Fannie Mea foreclosure. Let FRAUD STOPPERS and our insider banking expert and licensed private investigator give you and your attorney the facts and evidence you need to win your case today. To our knowledge we are the only organization that can locate the loan level data and trust information for a GSE (government sponsored entity) mortgages and private trusts that do not report to the SEC.
Our chain of title analysis and affidavit is produced by a Licensed Private Investigation who specializes in Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and Chain of Title Investigations for homeowners, their Attorneys, and Real Estate Professionals that help Homeowners fighting foreclosure and mortgage fraud.
In today’s world of securitized residential mortgages, a Secured Mortgage Loan consists of two parts: (A) the financial obligation (created by the Tangible Promissory Note) which operates in accordance with Federal and State Law, and (B) an enforceable contractual lien instrument (i.e. Tangible Security Instrument, Mortgage, Deed of Trust) intended to provide an alternate method of collection of payment to the Holder of the financial instrument in accordance with State Law. In reviewing the transfer and ownership history of a Secured Mortgage Loan, one must evaluate the negotiation of the financial instrument and consider the laws applicable to the Security Instrument upon said negotiation of the financial instrument.
Our Competent Evidence Package looks at the true sequential ownership of a Securitized Mortgage Loan Security Instrument as evidenced by the documents related to the client’s property filed with the County Recorder’s Office, and compares it to the claims of ownership made by the party attempting to foreclose. The Competent Evidence Package shows what steps SHOULD have been taken in the securitization process in order to become a proper party to enforce the mortgage contract, according to both statutory and case l aw. More importantly, the Competent Evidence Package shows what steps were ACTUALLY taken in the securitization process, and what steps were NOT taken, and the results of these actions/inactions on the Chain of Title as shown by the County Records.
Many times clients and their attorneys lack competent evidence. The term “competent evidence” is used to refer to evidence that is directly relevant and of such nature that it can be admitted into evidence in a court of law. For a client considering going into litigation, a prior assessment of the potential violations surrounding the Chain of Tit le of a Securitized Mortgage Loan is a much-needed tool for determining whether there is a valid basis for proceeding with a legal action.
The goal is to arm one’s self with indisputable evidence so they may clearly and accurately demonstrate that the claims made by the foreclosing party may be inaccurate and/or fraudulent. In addition to the written Chain of Title Analysis, our Investigators also create a customized infographic/flowchart/schematic to visually represent their findings regarding the path taken by the various parts of the client’s Mortgage Loan and the parties involved in the securitization process. This visual representation is invaluable in making the arguments indisputable and understandable to the clients, attorneys, and judges – A picture is truly worth a thousand words.
To clarify and sum up, our pro quiet title package includes:
A competent evidence package including chain of title analysis
Definitions and descriptions of the 5 parts of a Mortgage Loan Instrument and the various laws/codes that govern them
A detailed explanation of how securitization was SUPPOSED to work versus how it ACTUALLY worked
A detailed explanation of the difference between a paper Note and an electronic “eNote”
Screenshots of the client’s results from MERS/FannieMae/FreddieMac/RMBS databases
A visual flowchart-schematic detailing exactly what happened to the various parts of the client’s loan
Applicable Trust Law for the state where the securitized Trust is held
Definitions and visual examples of the different kinds of “indorsements” (to properly argue against the banks’ claims of “indorsement in blank”)
The PSA and 424B5 Prospectus of the RMBS Trust, or the Offering Circular Supplement of the GSE Trust (to prove they didn’t follow their own guidelines)
A sample flowchart showing the difference between how banks are supposed to handle securitization and how they usually actually do. This will give you a quick idea of what we look for and how we argue the corruption of the chain of title.
Affidavit of Fact detailing the credentials of the Licensed Private Investigator who performs the chain of title analysis and the documents he/she examined come notarized, and blue-ink originals are mailed to whichever address the law office has provided, ready to be placed into court as exhibits.
Declaratory Relief Complaint | Motion for Declaratory Judgment
TROs, Lis Pendens & Complaint Equitable/Special Damages relief, if needed.
6 hour training webinar on quieting title so you will learn how the process works
Call for details 800-459-1215
Fake Foreclosures Using the Fannie Mae Name
1. The central issue is not whether the homeowner owes a “servicer” any money. The central issue is whether the homeowner owes a creditor money.
Wall Street securities firms (Investment Banks) have many tricks by which they make fictitious claims appear to come alive. It is like those movies in which animated characters join the “Real-Life” figures. We accept this because we are there to be entertained, and we do not concern ourselves that neither animated characters nor the “real-life” characters are, in fact, real. They are imaginary, and we watch them to be entertained. And to be entertained, we must accept the story and characters as true.
Securitization and foreclosure are the same. The animated characters are those “mortgage-backed securities,” and the “real-life” characters are either fictional names of nonexistent entities or fictional use of names of business entities that technically exist but have no business interests in creating to a claim to collect money from anyone.
But in this case, the ticket price is always in six or seven figures. The homeowner may eventually lose the house to a non-creditor party, or the investors will lose their money by buying certificates that convey no interest in any loans. But this does not stop Wall Street intermediaries and sham conduits from being named by ignorant lawyers as being the parties on whose behalf a foreclosure is initiated.
One of the favorite tools used to force the sale of homesteads strictly for profit and not to pay off any debt is invoking the name “FANNIE MAE.”
So here is my answer to most questions involving the foreclosures in which FANNIE is used as a foil either directly or indirectly.
As for Fannie Mae, I think you might be oversimplifying the situation.
1. I totally agree that if FNMA is not the creditor — either on its own behalf or on behalf of a legally existing trust as Master Trustee, then any records of FNMA or anyone claiming to enforce a claim for money on behalf of FNMA is irrelevant, and even potentially subject to sanctions.
2. To know whether FNMA is a creditor, a lawyer purportedly representing FNMA must be willing to assert that status based upon a declaration or confirmation from FNMA that the subject homeowner owes FNMA money.
1. This is one of the places where procedural tricks take the place of substantive allegations or arguments.
2. The issue under the rules of evidence is whether the declaration from FNMA is truthful, and perhaps just as important whether an officer of FNMA gave such a declaration. This highlights how the banks weaponize the rules of procedure. The outlook is cloudy.
1. If you do not stay razor sharped focussed on the central issue, you will get (a) an acknowledgment or declaration from a person (probably a contract worker) singing on behalf of a “servicer” (whose function as a servicer is not supported by any evidence) who claims representative rights for litigating on behalf of FNMA.
2. The central issue is not whether the homeowner owes a “servicer” any money. The central issue is whether the homeowner owes a creditor money.
3. The FNMA servicing agreement DOES grant such powers to Wells Fargo and other qualified banks.
4. By focusing the court’s attention on the existence of those powers, the opposition is able to distract the court from the central issue of litigation: whether the homeowner owes money to FNMA.
5. The liability of the homeowner is initially presumed from any document that looks even close to being facially valid. So the job of the homeowner and homeowner’s counsel is to rebut that presumption or to remove the right to use it. Since the homeowner cannot rebut the presumption without an admission from the opposition, there is only one strategy that has a good chance of success: attacking the right to use the presumption.
3. Attacking the use of the presumption means either (1) attacking and objecting to the “facial validity” of a document (typically the endorsement of the note or assignment of the mortgage) and/or (2) attacking the right of the opposition to put on any evidence since it has violated the discovery rules contained in the rules of civil procedure. The opposition violates those rules when they fail to answer the question and produce a copy of the unpaid loan account on the books of FNMA.
1. By failing to provide evidence or information likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence relating to the existence and ownership of the presumed underlying obligation, they have waived their right to presume that the underlying obligation exists or is owned by FNMA.
2. They can still produce such evidence at trial, but only if they have complied with discovery demands and the court’s orders compelling compliance with the discovery rules and with the orders issued by the court.
The central issue in the litigation is not whether powers are granted between parties but rather whether any of them ever had any relevant powers as the foundation for the claim to collect money from the homeowner.
Ironically, due to the court doctrine that denies homeowners the right to be proactive in challenging the “servicer” and “creditor” until after the foreclosure is launched, and in many jurisdictions, after the foreclosure is completed, the best time to present this might be by tracking the events after judgment and after the sale.
It is there that the truth comes out. The judgment, credit bid, or right to sell is often transferred multiple times to conceal the fact that FNMA did not get any money from a forced sale and was never intended to receive it. The paperwork, as always, is vague and confusing. But homeowners do have the right to inquire where the money went and the amount of the loss that was covered on which account or ledger of what party.